Military Spending: Fewer Good Men

Share

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

"Defense is not a budget issue. You spend what you need." Ronald Reagan

We currently spend more on defense than the next 13 highest spending countries combined. China is second at $125 billion a year, and they are only spending that because they want to be ready to come collect on all the money we have borrowed from them.

The Defense Department has become the Offense Department. We invade and occupy, we do not "defend." The staggering amount we spend on defense does not include military aid to countries like Pakistan and Egypt, nor does it include border security, Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Folks, we spend a lot of money on "security" that we don't need to. It benefits the government to scare us so it can keep growing all its myriad agencies.

The F-35 fighter is a classic example. It is a jet many believe we don't need. It got funded because it is built in 46 states. Defense contractors spread their money around different districts to ensure that their products will be funded. Long ago, economic logic yielded to politics in our military procurement system.

The military–industrial complex might not need a war. It can make money-selling weapons to Obama to use against Congress and Fox News.

American voters' appetite for wars is fading. Only 25 percent wanted us to strike Syria, and the other 75 percent still want to know why we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. We will need fewer soldiers going forward. Future wars are going to be more drone- and special ops-driven, like the bin Laden raid.

Should a major enemy evolve, it would do so slowly over time. We could get back into a war footing pretty quickly, like we did in World War II. If there is a galvanizing cause, Americans will come together.

We need to pay veterans what we owe them for their service and stop making so many of them. And we need to thin the top-heavy, war-itching, military brass. If you have a hammer you are always looking for a nail, thus our wars.

We have a deep and abiding respect for our soldiers. We just think Washington uses them in conflicts that are not well thought out. Neo-cons played the game that if you were against the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, like I was, you were "not supporting the troops." They conveniently conflated your concerns about a war to insult your patriotism. When you disagree with the left, you are called a racist. This is a false argument advanced by weak minds.

The risk to America is our spending, not that some conquering army will cross the ocean to attack us. Radical Muslim sects don't get along with each other. The only reason they might unite is when they coalesce around their anger when we occupy their land. They aren't a threat. They do not have processed cheese or dial-up Internet. I am no military strategist, but the progression as I see would have to be: Get processed cheese, dial-up Internet and a few ships, and then think about crossing the ocean to take over the United States.

The real threat today is cyber warfare, not some 500,000 of our soldiers invading a country. We are always preparing to fight the last war, not the next one. We have smart bombs, but dumb politicians.

Ukraine is not our fight. The risk is to Europe. Europe should bear the cost, not us. We should get out of the business of being the world's policeman unless our national defense is truly threatened.

Our strength for now is economic, rather than military. With sanctions coordinated with the community of like-minded nations, we will have more sway. Economics matter. Even kleptocrats like the past Ukrainian leader realize you have to have economics and trade so you can steal from business owners.

When Obama took over, the Feds took $2.1 trillion from us to fund themselves. In his new budget, 5 years later, Obama is taking $3.3 trillion -- $1.2 trillion more to come from us and to Washington, which, to boot, borrows 35 percent of it. If there is any hope of stopping this spending, the GOP has to be economical on defense to make Obama think of cutting the welfare state he wants to grow.

Sadly, Obama will not use the defense cut "dividend" to pay down our debt but to pay up his political cronies.